Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

A Ramasamy vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police ( Crime )

Madras High Court|29 June, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent police to register a case against the proposed accused in pursuance of the petitioner's complaint dated 07.11.2016 and prosecute him in accordance with law.
2. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit filed before this Court in C.S.No.792 of 2016. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Original Petition that he had entered into a sale agreement on 23.08.2012 with one SRM.Mohammed Mohideen, s/o. M.Mohammed Ibrahim / plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in C.S.No.792 of 2016, for a total sale consideration of Rs.27 lakhs. However, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh as advance towards advance sale consideration and thereafter he paid a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, on various dates to the petitioner herein. Thereafter the plaintiff has not paid any sum towards part sale consideration and kept silent for a period of three years. Thereafter, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, he received a notice from this Court with regard to the above suit filed by the plaintiff and when the petitioner was seeing the documents, he was shocked that the entire second page of the agreement was fabricated by the plaintiff. The petitioner states that the same was done with the intention of getting wrongful gain from the petitioner.
3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the document, which is a sale agreement dated 23.08.2012, in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the suit in C.S.No.792 of 2016, is a forged one, and the original document is very well available with the plaintiff-SRM.Mohammed Mohideen. The counsel states that knowing very well that the said document is a forged one, the plaintiff has filed the suit before this Court.
4. Mr.C.Emalias, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, takes notice for the respondent.
5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and also the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent police is hereby directed to call the parties along with the original document, conduct enquiry and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
6. At this juncture, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner dated 07.11.2016 was received and a receipt in CSR No.149 of 2016 was issued and the matter came to be closed on 25.06.2017. Considering the said submission, the respondent police is directed to reopen the case and thereafter conduct enquiry as directed supra.
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
KM
7. The Criminal Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.
Index : Yes/No 29.06.2017 Internet : Yes/No KM To
1. The Inspector of Police (Crime), J-13, Tharamani Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai-600 104.
Crl.O.P.No.11463 of 2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

A Ramasamy vs State Rep By The Inspector Of Police ( Crime )

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
29 June, 2017
Judges
  • R Mahadevan